Our Local MP Should Stand Up For Oaklands Pool

Southampton Test's Labour MP is strangely quiet over the issue of the closure of Oaklands swimming pool. He is very quick to criticise the government who he says are not spending enough money on sport. He says in this month's local Compass magazine "It seems perverse to me to pull-the-rug-from sports funding at just the point when people might be more receptive to the idea of getting involved in local sports clubs or teams at school." I think its perverse that he can make a comment like this but remain totally silent about the decision of the Labour Council to shut Oaklands, which is heavily used by local swimming clubs and schools.

The decision to close Oaklands is wrong. It is a betrayal of local residents by Labour Councillors, who in opposition campaigned to keep the pool open. The handling of the announcement, leaking it to the press before telling staff, was totally disrespectful and unprofessional. If Alan Whitehead is really concerned about sport he should do the right thing and stand up for the pool and the community he is elected to represent.

5 Years of Labour Deceit Over Oaklands Pool

Labour 'supposedly' fighting to keep Oaklands in Winter 2009

The deceit of the Southampton Labour Party and their contempt for local residents knows no bounds. For 5 years Labour have been 'fighting for the future of Oaklands Pool', or so they say.


Back in 2007 when in opposition on the council, Labour proposed closing the pool but following the backlash from local residents and swimming clubs, did everything they could to back peddle. Consistently since then they have told residents that they were on their side and that they would protect the pool. In Winter 2009 local MP Alan Whitehead, launched a campaign in his taxpayer funded leaflet to keep the pool. Now just weeks into a new Labour Council administration they announce that they will be shutting the facility. How low can you get!? It seems Labour have been deceiving residents all along. What is even more galling is that they can find extra money to create additional jobs and chairmanships for Labour Councillors at the expense of the taxpayer but at the same time they cut the local swimming pool. 

I Won't Claim Leaflets on MPs Expenses

I have made no secret of the fact that I think that the MPs' Communications Allowance is wrong. Sitting MPs get to spend £10,000 of public money a year on leaflets promoting themselves and their activities.

I think that candidates for election and political parties should fund their own campaigns and not use our taxes for this purpose. I have made the clear commitment not to claim this allowance if elected to Parliament and David Cameron has made it clear that if he becomes Prime Minister this allowance will be scrapped for all MPs.

With a General Election being held next year the deadline for spending this Communications Allowance is the 31st December. It would appear that my opponent, Labour MP Alan Whitehead is hell bent on milking the taxpayer for every last penny before the deadline kicks in. Today I discovered that he has had another glossy leaflet printed at taxpayer's expense, which he uses to attack the city council, and by proxy the Conservatives and to spread mischief.

Mr Whitehead has made a great play of trying to say he is not like all the MPs who have behaved disgracefully with their expense claims. Yet he has shown that he is the same as the rest, taking as much as he can from the public purse for this own benefit. I find this behaviour even more disgusting in the current climate, a week after the Chancellor's Pre Budget Report when we found out the country is even more bankrupt than we first thought and in a week that the Labour Government is announcing billions of pounds of defence cuts at time when we are fighting a bitter war in Afghanistan.

When I go out knocking doors I hear time and time again from people how disgusted they are with politicians in this country. Today I can only agree with them.

Sorry is not good enough - House of Commons Committee should have ordered Jacqui Smith to repay expenses

The decision by local Labour MP, Alan Whitehead not to require Jacqui Smith to repay falsely claimed parliamentary expenses was quite wrong.

Mr Whitehead serves on the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges and is one of 5 Labour MPs who asked merely for an apology from Ms Smith, refusing to call for her to repay up to £116,000 of expenses wrongly claimed by her between 2004 -2009. The committee’s decision followed an investigation by John Lyon, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, who was scathing of the former Home Secretary’s behaviour.

Ms Smith claimed that her main home was a house in Peckham, a property owned by her sister where she used a room when staying in London. This allowed her to claim expenses and allowances on a ‘second home’, the four bedroom family home in the West Midlands.

Mr Whitehead was quite wrong to let his colleague off the hook. Jacqui Smith has been proved to have acted wrongly. She has been misleading about which house was really her main home and where she spent most of her time and Police evidence directly conflicted with her own account.

Any jury in the land would have said pay back the money. Having a bunch of MPs of the same party make the decision is like picking a prisoner’s cell mates and asking them to act as his jury.

It’s a pretty clear cut case to me. I think the committee should have ordered to her to pay back any expenses that were wrongly claimed.

The Importance of Public Service and Thoughts on MPs Expenses

I recently did a radio show and phone in for Awaaz FM along with Councillor Royston Smith about the importance of public service. The interview came ahead of the forthcoming European Elections on 4th June. I talked about the importance of voting how people can get involved in politics and their community. I also talked about why I first stood to be a councillor and why I am standing for Parliament.

This was all before the row that has blown up over MPs expenses. It all very depressing for someone like me who aspires to represent his local area in Parliament and believes in public service.

Expenses should be just that and should not be an excuse for some MPs to live off the state.

Being an MP is different to most jobs but it is beyond me why they think it is ok to claim all their food and things like tables and chairs.

In Southampton both our MPs, Alan Whitehead and John Denham, make use of their parliamentary communications allowances to pay for their leaflets to be printed and distributed.

As a candidate for Parliament my local political party pays for my leaflets. Why should the taxpayer pay for Alan and John’s? The communications allowance is £10,000 a year or £50,000 in a Parliament. That’s a lot of leaflets paid for by the taxpayer!

I have pledged that if elected to Parliament I will not putting my leaflets on expenses and I am backing David Cameron who has pledged to scrap the allowance if he becomes the next Prime Minister.

I challenge our Southampton MPs to do the same and in fact they should stop claiming this money now. Saying it is within the rules is not an excuse. It is not right and they should stop it.

Alan Whitehead has a long track record for arguing that political parties should receive more money from the taxpayer. My view is the opposite!

I should say that to his credit my opponent at the next General Election, Alan Whitehead has put a list of his expenses on his website. John Denham who represents the Southampton Itchen constituency has as yet failed to do so.

A Victory For The Gurkhas, but City MPs get it wrong

It is disgraceful that Southampton MPs Alan Whitehead and John Denham backed Gordon Brown in trying to restrict the right of many former Gurkha soldiers to settle in the UK.

Last night’s vote was a humiliating defeat for the Government and it showed up the city’s Labour MPs for having extraordinary lack of judgement.

We owe a debt of honour to the Gurkhas for their service to this country. I am delighted that enough MPs made the right decision. I am just disappointed that locally our Southampton MPs got it wrong.

The shadow immigration minister Damian Green has said that a Conservative Government would give all Gurkhas and their immediate dependents the right to settle in the UK. I hope last night's vote will see a change in policy from the Government.

MPs voted by 267 to 246 for a Lib Dem motion offering all Gurkhas equal right of residence, with the Tories and 27 Labour rebels backing it. A list of how MPs voted can be found HERE.

Rethink Needed on Shipping Tax

This week I wrote to Southampton Test's Labour MP Alan Whitehead urging him to press government to rethink the disasterous tax hike it is planning to impose on the port of Southampton:


Dear Dr Whitehead

Light Dues and Irish Subsidy

I am writing regarding the Department of Transport’s consultation on proposed amendments to the Merchant Shipping (Light Dues) Regulations 1997.

I am sure you will agree that at a time of extreme economic difficulty for all businesses, and in particular international shipping, there is an onus on Government to minimise potential additional costs which might harm employment. This is of particular importance for Southampton as the local docks is of huge importance to the economy of the city and wider region.

As you will know, any ship docking in at all UK and Republic of Ireland ports must pay a fee (Light Dues) to cover the costs of maintaining coastal navigation aids –such as lighthouses. I am appalled to see that the Department of Transport is considering increasing Light Dues by 6p this year. In addition to this the Government is proposing significant increases to the maximum chargeable tonnage from 35,000 to 50,000 net registered tonnes. Adding even more injury to the shipping industry the Government proposes to increase the number of chargeable voyages from seven to nine.

While we will agree on the importance of maintaining such navigational facilities as lighthouses, it should not mean that costs should be allowed to spiral uncontrollably upwards. There are two factors which have lead to the possible planed increases both of which could be controlled.

The first issue concerns the management of the General Lighthouse Fund. The GLF is proposing to allow expenditure (costs) to increase by 18% over the next four years. This is despite the fact that the GLF was tasked by the Department of Transport with identifying efficiencies. Indeed, as I understand it the forecasts for last year were for a 17% increase in the same period. So they have revised their figures upwards. Regarding a solution, many in the industry are wondering why it is that we require three separate General Lighthouse bodies, when they could be brought together and efficiency savings made.

The second factor is the Irish Subsidy which also comes from Light Dues. As you will know, it has been 80 years since the Irish Free State received its independence and we are still subsidising their lighthouses and navigational aids. Until 1985 the entire cost was covered by the UK. At present the cost split falls unfairly upon ships using UK ports only. It is absurd that we are still paying 50% of the Southern Irish portion of the lighthouse costs. The assessment of the Brook Report last March suggested that Northern Ireland accounts for only 15 per cent of the costs, so Britain should be paying 15 per cent not 65 percent. While I appreciate that officials are working to revise this cost sharing arrangements, I would remind you that your Government has been promising to tackle this issue since January 2004.

The shipping industry has been particularly hard hit by the current economic turmoil. For example, freight rates for containers shipped from Asia to Europe have already hit zero with customers just paying bunker rates and terminal charges. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI), which measures freight rates for bulk commodities, fell 96 per cent several months ago. UK Ports are also under severe pressure from foreign competition, with competitors on the continent not charging such fees as Light Duties. Any additional and unnecessary cost pressures at this time could lead to lines missing out stops at UK ports altogether.

I would be grateful if you could consider the points I have made and let me have your views.

City’s Labour MPs Need To Stand Up For The Port

The City’s Labour MPs should be challenging government plans to impose massive new tax rises on the port of Southampton.

The port is fundamental to the economy of Southampton and the region and tax hikes that drive away shipping will destroy local jobs.

This comes on top of the bungled decision recently by the government to impose a back dated business rates bill of £3.75m on 25 businesses in and around the port.

Our MPs, who should be fighting the city’s corner, are saying and doing nothing. Alan Whitehead MP, as a former Under Secretary of state for Transport, should understand the importance of the port and should be standing up for the city.

Time after time our Labour MPs are letting Southampton down. In the last few weeks we have had millions of pounds of government funding pulled from the city. They have pulled the plug on the money to revamp Guildhall Square and the money to rebuild the city’s colleges seems to be slipping away. Our MPs should start fighting for our local interests and putting the city first.

Labour MPs Let Down Southampton

Last night MPs rejected a Conservative motion in Parliament protesting at Labour plans to force the closure of 2,500 post offices by just 288 votes to 268, slashing the government's majority to 20.

Southampton’s two Labour MPs, Alan Whitehead and John Denham are being accused of hypocrisy for having campaigned to save post offices in the city whilst voting last night for the post office closures.

Our MPs are not standing up for the city. Once again when it comes to the crunch they are simply Gordon Brown’s voice in Southampton. Local communities in Southampton will be hit hard by these closures which will be very damaging and disruptive, particularly for elderly people.

The Conservatives are calling for the government’s closure programme to be suspended to allow a full revaluation of the process and work to be done to see where more business can be put into the post office network. For example this might involve working with Royal Mail or local councils.

The government is simply managing the decline of the post offices and we are arguing that they should be focused on building up the post office network so it becomes dependent more on its business rather than government subsidy.

Read more about keeping our post offices open.

Save Oaklands Swimming Pool

Last week Labour proposed the closure of Oaklands Swimming Pool. At the city council budget setting meeting they proposed to cut the budget for Oaklands pool by a crippling £160,000 (approximately 2/3rd of its annual budget). This would have forced the closure of the pool within a few months from now.

I am not entirely sure why Labour did this. In the budget debate Labour Councillors were unable to offer any satisfactory explanation.

Conservatives by contrast proposed that the pool stays open and that its opening hours remain unaffected.

I was astonished to read on Alan Whitehead's website that he is slamming the Conservatives over plans to reduce the opening times of the pool!

I can only conclude that his party on the city council do not talk to him or that he is simply trying to mislead people. The truth of the matter is all a matter of public record.

I am meeting the chairman of Eastleigh and Oaklands Swimming Club tomorrow to discuss how best we can secure the future of the pool.

It is not on that every year the pool is under threat from either closure or partial closure.

MP Whitehead Finally falls off the Fence...and lands on the right side!

I was delighted to learn that Southampton Test Labour MP Alan Whitehead has finally decided to back the Conservative Campaign for the Council to buy the former Civil Service Sports Ground so that it can be used by local people, by neighbouring St Marks School and nearby Regents Park School.

Conservative Councillors have been pushing for this as it will be a huge boost for local children and the community as well as the best and most practical solution for saving the land from flats being built on it by its owners Bovis Homes.

In a survey of 300 local people conducted by Mr Whitehead over 80% supported the Conservative campaign.

My colleagues and I are now pushing hard for the negotiations to buy the land to start.

Whilst being really pleased that the MP has chosen to support the campaign I would like to take the opportunity to correct some inaccuracies being peddled by Mr Whitehead.

Alan says:

“The City Council must guarantee that other groups and clubs will be allowed to use the playing fields out of school time, in a similar way that people can currently use the pool at Oaklands and Millbrook’s playing fields."


In fact...

This guarantee has been repeatedly given by all parties on the City Council. Of course we want community access and want any new school to be a community school in its truest sense. There is search facility on this website so anyone in any doubt of the Conservative position on this need only look any of dozens of earlier postings stretching back over recent years.

Labour plan to close Oaklands swimming pool! In their budget proposals for the next year published last week they have identified the closure of the pool as means of savings £160,000.

Alan says:

“The proposal to buy the sports ground is a fantastic opportunity- something I and the Labour group have been calling for since 2004. At that time the Conservative Councillors voted against the purchase. I’m delighted they have changed their policy and are supporting our campaign to preserve a vital green space in Freemantle.”

In fact...

The Conservatives did vote against Labour budget proposals in 2004. This included a proposal to allocate a small sum of money to compulsorily purchase the land from its then owners the Civil Service Sports Association. The vote was over the issue of all Council expenditure for the year which amounted to about a quarter of a billion pounds. We had our own budget proposals which we put forward which we felt were much better. Despite supporting the Council buying the land we did not support the route of compulsory purchase. A compulsory purchase is like using a hammer to crack a nut. It is also like writing a blank cheque. It is a legal process where the land is independently valued by a land tribunal. Once you have entered into the process you must pay whatever the land is deemed to be worth. Given that the land was in danger of being built on and that this was cited as the reason for the purchase, the sum of money could have been huge. Also there is no backing out of you don't like the price. The Conservative Group have always argued that negotiation and discussion is a better way of achieving a positive outcome. In the end it turned out the the money allocated by Labour was woefully inadequate and a fraction of the value Bovis Homes paid the Civil Service Sports Association.

Alan Says:

"Autumn 2006: the revised Learning Futures proposals are published, this time including a proposal to buy the former Civil Service sports ground for use as playing fields for a joint Regents Park – St Mark’s campus. Money is again allocated by the city council to purchase the sports ground; this time the Conservatives vote with Labour for the purchase."

In fact...

Conservatives successfully gained agreement to add the idea of a new school on the St Marks site into the Consultation. this was not one of the Council's original proposals. Additional money was then put aside in the Autumn following a Conservative motion. This then gained Labour support.

In December 2006 Alan Whitehead decided to back the campaign for a new school. As recently as November he was still considering whether the proposal was worthy of his support.

Anyway regardless of who said what I think its great news for Freemantle!!!